If you have ever noticed the banner at the top of this page, you undoubtedly know Cheryl and I use this blog to advocate for the teaching of REAL science.
In our view, one of the tenets of "REAL science" is that it does not seek to supplant or invalidate other modes of human inquiry, including philosophy, religion, and ethics. Since questions of meaning and purpose cannot be answered through the application of the scientific method, any attempt to attach meaning to a scientific explanation is outside the bounds of science. One of the corollaries of this view of science is that scientific explanations need not be viewed as inherently antithetical to religious belief.
By our very existence, Cheryl and I are living examples of the fact that science and faith can exist in harmony. We are both Christians, and we believe that it is possible to reconcile our personal religious beliefs about the ultimate nature of reality with the knowledge gained through the scientific investigation of the physical universe. Indeed, we not only believe this - we are counting on it.
That's why we take issue with those who assert that harmony between science and religion is ultimately impossible. Although we certainly respect the opinions of those who hold this viewpoint, our very existence would seem to refute the universality of the assertion.
Unfortunately, there are some people who argue that Cheryl and I should not exist. If you accept that science and religion can exist in harmony, so the argument goes, then you are "compromising" science and therefore you are neither a true scientist nor an authentic religious believer.
A version of this argument was recently put forth by Dr. Jerry Coyne in a blog post entitled "Truckling to the Faithful: A Spoonful of Jesus Helps Darwin Go Down." The following quote provides a decent summary of Coyne's essay:
"Here I argue that the accommodationist position of the National Academy of Sciences, and especially that of the National Center for Science Education, is a self-defeating tactic, compromising the very science they aspire to defend. By seeking union with religious people, and emphasizing that there is no genuine conflict between faith and science, they are making accommodationism not just a tactical position, but a philosophical one. By ignoring the significant dissent in the scientific community about whether religion and science can be reconciled, they imply a unanimity that does not exist. Finally, by consorting with scientists and philosophers who incorporate supernaturalism into their view of evolution, they erode the naturalism that underpins modern evolutionary theory."
As a religious believer and as a science teacher, I strongly disagree with Dr. Coyne. For the remainder of this post, I intend to explain why.
Before I get to my criticism, first let me say that I appreciate the work that Jerry Coyne has done in support of the teaching of evolution. I just finished reading his book "Why Evolution is True" and I thought that it was an excellent overview of the evidence of evolution. In fact, when I orginally lauched my "stand up for REAL science" website, Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins gave me their permission to reprint a segment of an article that they co-wrote for The Guardian. (See, theists and atheists really can work together effectively in the defense of quality science education!)
Now, on to my criticism...
Coyne is highly critical of organizations like the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) for taking what he calls an "accomodationist position" concerning the compatiblity of science and religion. If you take the time to read his post, Coyne's disdain for any hint of a harmonious relationship between religion and science is quite palpable. He even claims that "endorsement and affiliation with supernaturalist scientists, philosophers, and theologians, inevitably corrupts their mission."
In constructing his argument against the so-called "accomodationist" stance of the NCSE, Coyne conveniently ignores the distinction between methodological and philosophical naturalism. According to Coyne, those scientists who believe in a transcendent God are compromising and corrupting science because their religious views concerning the ultimate meaning of evolution "erode the naturalism that underpins modern evolutionary theory." Nevermind that they willingly propose testable hypotheses using natural explanations for natural phenomena. According to Coyne, in order to truly promote evolutionary theory, they must also believe that nature is all that exists.
Coyne cites Kenneth Miller as an example of a scientist whose religious beliefs lead to this supposed "erosion" of naturalism. Unfortunately for Coyne, he completely fails to demonstrate that beliefs like those held by Miller have had any kind of adverse effect on science. In his writings, Kenneth Miller is studiously cautious to avoid blurring the line between his private beliefs and the public knowledge gained through science. But Coyne doesn't even make an honest attempt to delineate Miller's theological beliefs from his scientific understandings. Apparently for Coyne, merely believing that there might be something beyond the physical universe corrupts the purity of science. Why?
Because Jerry Coyne says so. That's why.
In other words, when faced with evidence that faith and science can live in harmony, Jerry Coyne has purposely made himself tone deaf.
Thankfully, Ken Miller has previously responded to similar assertions made earlier by Coyne. I'll let Dr. Miller defend himself:
With all due respect to my distinguished colleague, that is nonsense. One can indeed embrace science in every respect, and still ask a deeper question, one in which Coyne seems to have no interest. Why does science work? Why is the world around us organized in a way that makes itself accessible to our powers of logic and intellect? The true vow of a scientist is to practice honest and open empiricism in every aspect of his scientific work. That vow does not preclude the scientist from stepping back, acknowledging the limitations of scientific knowledge, and asking the deeper questions of why we are here, and if existence has a purpose. Those questions are genuine and important, even if they are not scientific ones, and I believe they are worth answering.
So do I. And there are many, many others who feel this way.
In spite of all of this, Coyne actually did write something that I can get behind:
If natural selection and evolution are as powerful as we all believe, then we should devote our time to making sure that they are more widely and accurately understood, and that their teaching is defended.
Now this is a goal that I think all of us who seek to promote and defend the teaching of evolution can agree upon. This should be the primary goal of any individual or organization devoted to promoting and defending the teaching of evolution.
Coyne goes on to suggest that organizations like the NCSE should "[l]eave theology to the theologians." In a perfect world, this would be the ideal. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world.
The problem with Coyne's suggestion is that, among those Americans who reject evolution, almost all do so entirely on religious grounds. Even though Coyne is willing to acknowledge this obvious fact, I think he fails to grasp the implications of it. Coyne's "leave theology to the theologians" argument seems to rest on the assumption that people approach the topic of evolution in a rational manner. Sadly, that is not the case. For most people, the rejection of evolution stems from the widely-trumpeted notion that evolution necessarily conflicts with all forms of religious belief.
In order for organizations like the NCSE to be effective promoters of evolution, they must counter this notion with the evidence that demonstrates it is not necessarily true. This is why people like Kenneth Miller have become such important leaders in the struggle to defend the teaching of evolution. Miller's apparently disproportionate public influence is not due to the fact that he represents the majority viewpoint of the scientific community. In fact, he probably does not. Instead, Miller's appeal is due to the fact that, as a believer, Miller has a better chance of calming the fears the have led the majority of the general public to reject evolution outright.
Please note that I am not arguing that this is how things should be, merely that this is how they are. I mean, let's face it: regardless of how passionately and convincingly an atheist presents the evidence that demonstrates why evolution is true, it simply will not have much of an effect on the people who currently reject evolutionary theory. That's because their rejection of evolution is based on an irrational fear that the acceptance of evolution will force them to reject their faith. The repeated assertion that accepting evolution necessarily precludes religious belief only confirms this irrational fear and makes the problem worse, not better.
In summary, I strongly disagree with Jerry Coyne about the possibility of achieving harmony between science and religion. But Jerry Coyne is an atheist and I'm a Christian, so I guess you probably saw that coming. My disagreement is based on the fact that Coyne avoids making important distinctions between publicly-verifiable scientific knowledge and privately held religious beliefs. I am also puzzled by Coyne's devotion to, in Ken Miller's words, a "campaign to purge science of religionists in the name of doctrinal purity." If his true goal is to see that evolution is "more widely and accurately understood" then his arguments against "accomodationism" seem unnecessary and counterproductive.
Throughout all of this, though, I cannot help but notice that there is a large group of people who would wholeheartedly join right in with Jerry Coyne's chorus against "accomodationism." They're often called "religious fundamentalists" or "creationists."
Ironically, when it comes to believing that it is impossible to be a religious person and also accept evolution, Jerry Coyne and Ken Ham are singing the same tune.
posted by Jeremy Mohn
